Manufacture of gas from hydrogen-bearing starting materials.

ABSTRACT

In a process for manufacturing gas from hydrogen-bearing starting materials—such as those also containing carbon, carbonaceous materials, hydrocarbons or other hydrogen-bearing materials—the starting materials are fed into a 3-dimenstional plasma region to produce two output streams: a gas substantially containing hydrogen, and a by-products stream. Apparatus and a method are disclosed for generating gas which is substantially hydrogen gas (but may also contain other gaseous species) from the essentially complete dissociation of the starting materials in a plasma operating under pyrolytic conditions. 1  Starting materials are fed into a plasma reactor. These starting materials are heated by one or more disclosed plasma sheets and/or plasma arrays in a reactor. The manufactured gas is vented from the reactor through an outlet. By-products are also removed from the reactor after being processed to remove the manufactured gas constituents. In addition, organic and inorganic matter that is input to the plasma is rendered ecologically and biologically safe and the by-products are extracted from the reactor for disposal (e.g., carbon sequestering) or to be recycled into various uses (e.g., ceramic tiles, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, 2  pyrolytic graphite, for insulation and road paving materials).

REFERENCES CITED U.S. Patent Documents

-   U.S. Pat. No. 3,518,062 June 1970 Delange et al. (a UF6 reactor     design) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,019,895 April 1977 Santen (Method of reducing ore     using a plasma burner) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,102,766 July 1978 Fey (Process for doping high     purity silicon in an arc heater) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,105,437 August 1978 Liu (high temperature of the     magneto-plasma) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,115,074 September 1978 Yoshida et al. (A     gasification process for forming a gas mixture containing hydrogen) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,466,807 August 1984 Santen et al. (Manufacture of a     gas containing monoxide and hydrogen gas from a starting material     containing carbon and/or hydrocarbon) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,504,308 March 1985 Rinesch (Method of operating a     metallurgical plant) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,508,040 April 1985 Santen et al. (waste material     being subjected to a plasma gas) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,591,428 May 1986 Pronk (Continuous process for the     catalytic treatment of hydrocarbon oils) -   U.S. Pat. No. 4,831,944 May 1989 Durand et al. (Process and device     for destroying solid waste by pyrolysis) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,144 September 1991 Jensen (hot gas formed by     plasma heating) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,107,517 April 1992 Lauren (A melting furnace for     melting raw material to produce a melt for mineral wool production) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,281,790 January 1994 Nguyen Handfield et al (Process     of immobilizing ashes by vitrification thereof in a plasma reactor) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,493,578 February 1996 Fukusaki et al. (ash melting     furnace includes a stationary plasma torch which uses air for the     working gas) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,541,386 July 1996 Alvi et al. (Plasma arc     decomposition of hazardous wastes into vitrified solids and     non-hazardous gasses) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,597 August 1996 Camacho (Plasma pyrolysis and     vitrification of municipal waste) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,634,414 June 1997 Camacho (Process for plasma     pyrolysis and vitrification of municipal waste) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,766,303 June 1998 Bitler et al. (Process for the     remediation of lead-contaminated soil and waste battery casings) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,798,496 August 1998 Eckhoff et al. (Plasma-based     waste disposal system) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,923,698 July 1999 Loebner et al. (Method of     operating an arc furnace, and an arc furnace) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,943,970 August 1999 Gonopolsky et al. (Method and     equipment for thermal destruction of wastes using plasma jets) -   U.S. Pat. No. 5,958,264 September 1999 Tsantrizos et al. (Plasma     gasification and vitrification of ashes) -   U.S. Pat. No. 6,114,648 September 2000 Takano et al. (Waste     demolishing method and apparatus therefore)

Foreign Patent Documents

-   none none -   Primary Examiner: TBD -   Attorney, Agent or Firm: none

FIELD OF INVENTION

This invention relates to apparatus and a process for the ecologically acceptable production of manufactured gas (substantially containing hydrogen) from hydrogen-bearing starting materials—including, but not limited to, carbonaceous materials (e.g., coal, petroleum, natural gas); wastes, including municipal solid waste (MSW), industrial waste and biomass; and other hydrogen-bearing starting materials—by means of pyrolysis utilizing large scale plasma heating, gasification and dissociation, in combination with other process management technologies, in a partial vacuum or under negative or positive pressure, using process gas or an inert, non-oxidizing atmosphere (i.e., pyrolysis) and using the disclosed plasma sheet and/or plasma array inventions or similar means.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Burning Fossil Fuels—Many believed that the burning of hydrocarbons by humankind has contributed materially to global warming.³ Life on Earth is part of the natural carbon cycle.⁴ Plants have for millions of years combined chlorophyll, water and sunlight to convert atmospheric carbon in the form of carbon-dioxide (CO₂) to hydrocarbons and, along with geologic processes, have sequestered this carbon in various carbon-bearing deposits, e.g., coal seams. The burning of these carbon-rich deposits by humankind has in effect reversed in only a few hundred years the natural sequestrating of billions of tons of carbon that had occurred over tens of millions of years, materially altering the natural carbon cycle and the current environment. The re-release of large quantities of sequestered carbon, specifically its release into the atmosphere as CO₂, has disturbed the global environment, and may be turning the Earth's environmental clock back to a time and to conditions that predate and could be hostile to the development of humankind.⁵ CO₂ is one of a group of potent greenhouse gases.⁶ Their release has contributed to recent changes (and is projected to contribute to future undesirable changes) in global temperature, weather and the carbon cycle; in other words the Greenhouse Effect.⁷ To limit, and even reverse the effects of greenhouse gases on the planet, it is highly desirable for humankind to reduce, limit and perhaps even eliminate future releases of CO₂ into the environment.

That is why this disclosure seeks to promote a method of hydrogen extraction from hydrogen-bearing materials which minimize CO₂ release, to minimize the release of carbon already sequestered in such deposits, and other starting materials. It is believed that the burning and post-burn capture, storage and re-sequestering of CO₂ is less desirable, and is likely to be less economical, at least in the short-run and perhaps in the long-term as well, when all the external environmental risks and consequences are considered, and/or may prove to be technically, geologically, socially and/or politically infeasible for a wide range of applications.

The Energy and Wastes Problems—As nations become more industrialized and the world more populated, there is a constant increase in both the demand for energy (in various forms), and in the creation of waste by-products. Many of these waste by-products are hydrogen-bearing and carbonaceous.

Today in America over one-half of the energy generated by power plants is derived from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas or heavy oil. Such power plants, however, also generate significant air pollution and release vast quantities of CO₂. In view of this, and of the increasing costs and dwindling supply of some fossil fuels, many countries are recognizing and encouraging the production of electrical energy from non-carbon based and renewable resources, such as wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, biomass and wastes.

Wastes (including municipal solid wastes or MSW, industrial waste, toxic waste, and coal ash and fines) are currently being dumped into and are polluting landfills or are being burned in common incinerators, creating emissions of pollutants, including carcinogenic materials such as semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including dioxins and furans, that are products of low temperature combustion, and of course large quantities of CO₂.

Landfills are becoming full, and the availability of new sites near heavily populated areas is limited worldwide. Additionally, the continued pollution of ground water by hazardous leachate, as well as health concerns caused by malodor, rodents and fumes, has rendered landfills undesirable. These issues and others have resulted in the development of the NIMBY Syndrome (“not in my backyard”) in most populations. For these reasons, many governments are mandating that landfills meet new, more stringent leachate and pollution control standards, thus increasing the cost of landfills markedly.

Incinerators also have been closed down or banned in many countries because of hazardous air emissions and resulting ash production. As a result of the low temperature combustion that takes place in these incinerators, hydrocarbon chains are not completely severed and are released into the atmosphere as SVOCs, which are known carcinogens and are passed through to humans via the food chain. For example, dioxins are deposited on grass and eaten by cattle and end up in milk sold to humans. The fixed carbons in the waste also are untouched by the low temperature incineration process and end up as bottom ash and fly ash. This ash makes up almost 25% of the waste and is considered hazardous due to its leachability once placed in a land-fill. Many countries are now prohibiting the direct landfill of ash.

Thus, there exists the need for a source of readily available, environmentally friendly energy in the form of hydrogen gas, and for apparatus and a process for the manufacture of gas (substantially containing hydrogen) from hydrogen-bearing carbonaceous (and other) starting materials, that both operates cleanly and dispenses with various forms of wastes, resolving the foregoing problems.

The Hydrogen Economy—In partial recognition of the side affects of carbon release, President Bush has called for the development of a hydrogen economy.⁸ The hydrogen economy envisioned is one in which energy is stored, transported and used as hydrogen gas (H₂). Various hydrogen economy scenarios can be envisioned using hydrogen in a number of ways. A common feature of these scenarios is using hydrogen as an energy carrier for mobile applications (e.g., vehicles and aircraft). In the context of a hydrogen economy, hydrogen is an energy storage medium, but not a primary energy source. Therefore, to achieve this vision of the hydrogen economy, there is a pressing need to find sources of hydrogen that do not also result in the release of carbon, CO or CO₂ to the environment.⁹

Proponents of a hydrogen economy suggest that hydrogen is an environmentally cleaner source of energy for end-users, particularly in transportation applications, without release of pollutants (such as greenhouse gasses) at the point of end-use. However, the potential advantages of the hydrogen economy could be lost to society and the environment unless hydrogen can be produced without (or at least with a minimum of) the systemic release of CO₂ or the need for CO₂ capture, storage and sequestrating.¹⁰ So, the use of hydrogen produced with energy derived from the burning of fossil fuels is problematic, unless and perhaps even if CO₂ capture, storage and sequestering are utilized at the site of hydrogen production. To minimize the impact of the hydrogen economy on the environment, alternative safe, clean and environmentally acceptable primary sources of hydrogen, and processes for extracting that hydrogen from those resources, must be developed and employed.

It is, therefore, an objective of the present invention to disclose an improvement of previously disclosed apparatus and processes—for the pyrolytic gasification of starting materials, such as coal and waste—to produce “green hydrogen” from “black carbon” and other starting material resources. The perspective of this disclosed invention is that the carbon in any starting materials is a by-product. The negative impact of CO₂ release on the environment renders it a by-product: It is envisioned that carbon, substantially contained in the process by-products, will be re-sequestered to minimize its release. For example, this may be accomplished by returning much of the processed carbon, perhaps in a vitreous form,¹¹ to the underground seam from whence the coal starting materials originally came.

Other objectives and advantages will be more fully apparent from the following disclosure and appended claims.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The named inventions are referred to here as the plasma sheet and the plasma array or simply the array. The named process is the large-scale pyrolytic extraction of manufactured gas (substantially containing hydrogen) from hydrogen-bearing starting materials using the named inventions (or similar means) in a reactor containing a non-oxidizing atmosphere.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a front and side or end schematic view of an example plasma sheet.

FIG. 2 is a front and side or end schematic view of an example plasma array.

FIG. 3 contains a schematic of a plasma reactor using plasma sheets in an array.

FIG. 4 contains front and side or end views of various plasma sheet designs for coal.

FIG. 5 is a front and side or end view of a plasma array design for coal.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Improved Method and Designs—It is an objective of these inventions to provide an improved method and designs to enhance the process for the large-scale heating, gasification and dissociation of starting materials. The disclosed inventions allow for large-scale heating, gasification and dissociation to occur within a reactor, ensuring optimum performance and complete breakdown of all starting materials fed into the system, improving the overall performance of the process.

Disclosed Invention is Different—These inventions and process are different from other plasma arc reactors in several important and novel ways. The disclosed inventions and process differences are described hereinafter.

Plasma Sheet and Plasma Array—Two of the named inventions are referred to here as the plasma sheet and the plasma array or simply the array. The named process is the large-scale pyrolytic extraction of manufactured gas (substantially containing hydrogen) from hydrogen-bearing starting materials using the named inventions or similar means. In the disclosed process a plasma sheet and/or plasma array or similar means is used as a heat source to pyrolyze starting materials, extracting manufactured gas, while most carbon and other by-products are removed.

Plasma Sheet and Plasma Array Compared—The plasma sheet starts as a near 1-dimensional, straight or curved line apex and the plasma widens into a 3-dimensional, elongated, pyramidal form (see FIG. 1). It is this elongated pyramidal volumetric plasma reacting region which improves the reactor throughput and efficiency for the large-scale conversion of starting materials. The plasma array starts as a 2-dimensional flat, curved or folded sheet apex which can create an even larger 3-dimensional plasma reacting region (see FIG. 2). Both these larger 3-dimensional reacting regions allow for either or both longer reacting times and/or higher starting material throughput rates, than is attainable with other designs.

Forming a Plasma Sheet—A plasma sheet may be formed from a number of different means. Rather than using a rod-shaped design, typical of the traditional plasma arc torch, the plasma sheet may be formed from an elongated cathode and anode (part 1) or a series of cathodes and anodes (part 2) in various arrangements (see FIG. 4). Similar means might involve a row or grouping of separate plasma arcs, whereby the row or grouping of individual intense narrow focal conical-shaped reacting regions overlap and merge into a single larger elongated pyramidal reacting region.

Plasma Sheet—Detailed Description—This description will refer to the multi-part plasma sheet in FIG. 4 (part 2), but will generally apply to all designs with similar purpose, including elongated and similar multi-arc designs. The objective of the device is to produce a larger reacting region in order to accommodate larger mass-flow rates and/or longer reacting times required for the large-volume processing of starting materials.

FIG. 4 (part 2)—The disclosed process produces a large volume of manufactured gas and by-products, the latter containing substantial quantities of carbon. This by-product carbon may be fashioned into manufactured-graphite, consumable electrodes. These electrodes (10) and (20) are supported mechanically by insulating structures (not shown) and connected electrically to a power supply (30) (not shown), whose design and use is well understood by those skilled in the art. As atoms oblate from the surface of the electrodes, this material will need to be replaced periodically. Either stationary or auto-advancing electrode designs may be used. The embodiment contained in FIG. 4 (part 2) contemplates an advancing cathode design (10). As the cathode tip is consumed by the process, the electrode is fed down into the holder by mechanisms not shown, but whose design and use is well understood by those skilled in the art. Pre-ionization of the entering process gas by coronal discharge or similar means (40) prepares the gas for conduction and full ionization in the electrical arc (50). The electrical arc through and ionizing the process gas is formed between the two electrodes (10) and (20). (Other electrode designs and arrangements are also possible. For example, some plasma arcs use the starting material melt as the anode.) The process gas (60), in this case manufactured gas substantially containing hydrogen, is introduced into a plenum above the plasma sheet support assembly (65). Gas flows down into orifices (not shown) leading to the pre-ionization area (40) where the gas is partially ionized improving its conductivity. From there the gas flows down into the electrical arc, plasma formation region (50). Electrons flowing through the electrical arc (not shown) heat the gas dissociating it into atoms and then the atoms into their electron and proton-nuclei constituents. The electrical arc raises the temperature of the elongated 3-dimensional pyramidal plasma to the process design temperature. The overall process design and specifically the plasma temperature (70) is a function of a number of parameters, including, but not limited to, the composition and flow-rate of the starting materials, the physical design of the reactor, the process objectives and the desired manufactured gas composition.^(12,13,14) The temperature sought for the dissociating starting materials (80) will also be a factor in determining the plasma sheet design and plasma temperature used. The process should seek to maximize hydrogen production, while avoiding the unintended vaporization of undesirable chemical species.¹⁵

Forming a Plasma Array—A plasma array may be formed from two or more plasma sheets. It may also be formed by a perforated sheet (see FIGS. 2 and 5). A plasma array may be used to form a larger 3-dimensional plasma reacting zone with both greater width and depth. The advantages of these larger reacting regions include:

-   -   increased reaction time, which results in more complete         reactions, and     -   the ability to handle higher starting material throughput rates,         while maintaining the overall manufactured gas production         process objectives.

Plasma Array—Detailed Description—This description will refer to the multi-part plasma array in FIG. 5, but will generally apply to all designs with similar purpose, including elongated and similar multi-arc designs. The objective of the device is to produce an even larger reacting region in order to accommodate larger mass-flow rates and/or longer reacting times required for the very large-volume processing of starting materials.

FIG. 5—In this embodiment, the plasma array is constructed of three plasma sheets. Other similar designs and arrangements are also possible. Electrodes (10) and (20) are supported mechanically by insulating structures (not shown) and connected electrically to a power supply (30) (not shown), whose design and use is well understood by those skilled in the art. As atoms oblate from the surface of the electrodes, this material will need to be replaced periodically. Either stationary or auto-advancing electrode designs may be used. The embodiment contained in FIG. 5 contemplates an advancing cathode design (10). As the cathode tip is consumed by the process, the electrode is fed down into the holder by mechanisms not shown, but whose design and use is well understood by those skilled in the art. Pre-ionization of the entering process gas by coronal discharge or similar means (40) (partially shown) prepares the gas for conduction and full ionization in the electrical arc (50). The electrical arc through and ionizing the process gas is formed between the two electrodes (10) and (20). (Other electrode designs and arrangements are also possible. For example, some plasma arcs use the starting material melt as the anode.) The process gas (60), in this case manufactured gas substantially containing hydrogen, is introduced into a plenum above the plasma array support assembly (65). Gas flows down into orifices (not shown) leading to the pre-ionization area (40) (incompletely shown) where the gas is partially ionized improving its conductivity. From there the gas flows down into the electrical arc, plasma formation region (50). Electrons flowing through the electrical arc (not shown) heat the gas dissociating it into atoms and then the atoms into their electron and proton-nuclei constituents. The electrical arc raises the temperature of the 3-dimensional plasma array to the process design temperature. The overall process design and specifically the plasma temperature (70) is a function of a number of parameters, including, but not limited to, the composition and flow-rate of the starting materials, the physical design of the reactor, the process objectives and the desired manufactured gas composition. The temperature sought for the dissociating starting materials (80) will also be a factor in determining the plasma array design and plasma temperature used. The process should seek to maximize hydrogen production, while avoiding the unintended vaporization of undesirable chemical species.

Plasma Arc Torch is Less Desirable—A plasma arc torch involves a near zero-dimensional or point source. The plasma forms an intense narrow focal heat source, conical in shape, with a narrow reacting region, its apex formed at the plasma arc torch anode. These narrow plasma reacting zones may be acceptable for use in a laboratory environment or for a small scale, test or a pilot plant, either where demonstration-of-concept is the primary objective of the process design or where only a relatively low throughput rate is required. However, these narrow plasma arc torch designs can prove to be less efficient, inefficient or unworkable when applied to the very large-scale extraction of manufactured gas substantially containing hydrogen from various starting materials as is discussed here.

Process Discussion

Large Plasma Reacting Volumes Required—Both the plasma sheet and the plasma array are more suitable for the large-scale reacting of starting materials because of the larger reacting volume, longer reacting times and the improved reacting region geometry allowed by their use. The large-scale extraction of manufactured gas from coal or waste starting materials for electric power production is but one such example use.

Why a Large Plasma Reacting Volume is Required Large Base-Load Power Plant Rating 1,250 megawatts (MW) Combined Cycle Unit Heat Rate 7,000 Btu/kWh Heat Required 8,750 million Btu/hr. Hydrogen Energy in an Example Coal 2,300 Btu/lb Coal Processed for Hydrogen Extraction 3.8 million lb/hour 63,000 lb/minute Large Volume and Mass-Flow Rate Required 1,050 lb/second

In order to provide for a sufficient input mass-flow rate and for full heating, gasification and dissociation of various chemical species, a suitable plasma volume must be generated and a sufficient plasma reaction-residency time for starting materials must be achieved.

An Atypical Reactor—The input volume and mass-flow rate, reaction objectives and the characteristics of the starting material will in part dictate the geometric and other physical parameters of the reactor. Disclosed here is a high mass-flow rate pyrolytic plasma reactor with the objective of large-scale production of manufactured gas (substantially containing hydrogen) derived from carbonaceous and other starting materials.

Therefore, an atypical, large-scale reactor is used with this disclosed apparatus and method. It may be sized to process from 0.4 to 4 million pounds per hour of starting materials, although reactors sized larger or smaller also may be used. The exact size, design, and physical shape of the reactor will depend on the type and composition of the starting materials and the desired overall throughput of the reactor, among other factors. The design and use of such reactors is well understood by those skilled in the art.

The number and design of plasma sheets and/or plasma arrays (and/or similar means) used in the reactor, the power rating of each, the capacity and process objectives of the starting materials feeding system, the size and capacity of the manufactured gas cleaning system, and, in the case of electric power generation, the number and size of any fuel cells or combined cycle combustion and steam turbines, are all variables to be determined in accordance with the type and volume of starting materials to be processed by the system, among other factors.

Process Description—In FIG. 3, the starting materials (10) will be fed into a hopper (15) where they flow into a pulverizer to be crushed to a consistent size and mixed for a uniform consistency (20). Excess water and air are removed (25). A control system (30) and reactor feed controls (35) will manage the flow of pre-processed starting materials into the reactor (40). Plasma sheets in a plasma array (45) will heat, gasify and dissociate starting materials to their various constituents in the large plasma reacting zone (50). By-products in slag form first drain into a slag pool (55) to be drained from the reactor (60), and then will be disposed of in vitreous form (not shown).

Gaseous products (70) flow upward to separators (75) where entrapped particles and ash are removed. Wet manufactured gas flows out of the reactor (80) to be further cleaned, cooled and dried (85). Dried manufactured gas (90), e.g., 90% H₂ gas, then travels by pipeline to the end use (not shown) at a combined cycle electric power generator.

The reactor will contain sensors (65) to detect the pressure and temperature inside the reactor, as well as gas sampling ports and appropriate gas analysis equipment at strategic positions in the reactor to monitor the gas manufacturing process. This information will be fed to the Control System (30). The design and use of such equipment is well understood by those skilled in the art.

Equivalents—While the inventions and process have been particularly shown and described with reference to specific preferred embodiments, it should be understood by those skilled in the art, that various changes in form and detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention and process claims.

Power Requirements—The power requirements for the plasma sheet and array are considerable and dependent upon the starting materials processed. The complete pyrolytic heating, gasification and dissociation of starting materials is a highly endoergic reaction requiring significant power input.¹⁶ Yet the energy value in the manufactured gas (e.g., 90% H₂) produced is sufficiently high so as to more than offset this high initial energy input. The following example calculations demonstrate this input-output result.

Plasma Sheet Power Requirements in an Array for an Example Reactor Starting Material Hydrogen Energy in an Example Coal Mass-flow Rate 0.4 million lb/hour 0.4 million lb/hour 200 tons/hr. 200 tons/hr. Est. Energy Req. to Process 100 kWh/ton/hr 250 kWh/ton/hr 20,000 kWh/hr 50,000 kWh/hr 20 MWH/hr 50 MWH/hr 90% H₂ gas produced 1,000 cu.ft./sec. 1,000 cu.ft./sec. 3.6 million cu.ft./hr 3.6 million cu.ft./hr Energy Contained in Products 1,040 MMBTU/hr 1,040 MMBTU/hr Combined Cycle Unit Heat Rate 7,000 BTU/kWh 7,000 BTU/kWh 149,000 kWh/hr. 149,000 kWh/hr. Available after Process Uses 129,000 kWh/hr. 99,000 kWh/hr. 8,100 BTU/kWh eq. 10,500 BTU/kWh eq. Overall Efficiency 42% 32%

Substantially Containing Hydrogen—Most starting materials, such as coal and MSW, contain some trapped air and water. Even after pre-processing to remove air and water some still remains. Therefore, contained oxygen and oxygen from dissociation of water (and other oxides) in the starting materials is liberated in the plasma reactor. Each contributes oxygen to form oxide by-product gasses in the manufactured gas, such as SO₂, NO_(x) and some CO and CO₂, as well as water vapor (H₂O). This is why, despite a predominantly hydrogen or inert gas reacting atmosphere, operating under pyrolytic conditions, some less desirable gaseous species may persist in the manufactured gas. However, the manufactured gas is substantially composed of hydrogen gas. (The lesser quantities of by-product oxide gases may be unavoidable, given their origins in the starting material.) The hydrogen content of manufactured gas (e.g., produced from coal using the named inventions and process disclosed here) is materially higher than that for coal-based synthetic gas (syngas) and exceeds that of natural gas, the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels.

Gas Analysis Comparison (approx. vol. %) Exit Dried Dried Gaseous Mfg. Mfg. Coal-Syngas Natural Species Gas Gas with N w/o N Gas (eq.) H₂ 80 90  17 34 80 CO + CO₂ 8 9 32 63 20 H₂O 11 — — — — N₂ + NO_(x) + SO₂ 1 1 51 2 —

Syngas is Less Desirable—Some prior patent disclosures (Santen et al) have sought to produce syngas.¹⁷ Syngas still contains substantial quantities of carbon-monoxide (CO), e.g., 63% CO, with hydrogen gas, where the CO is burned, releasing substantial CO₂ into the environment. The burning of syngas is less desirable than burning manufactured gas which is substantially composed of hydrogen gas. The disclosed inventions and process seek to minimize the burning of carbon and CO, and thereby minimize the release and/or sequestering of CO₂.

Bed Reactors are Less Desirable—Bed reactors/burners suffer at least two deficiencies. First, they often do not reach sufficiently high temperatures to fully dissociate and neutralize many undesirable chemical species. Second, they usually employ an oxidizing atmosphere, containing air or an oxygen-enriched (or partially oxygen-depleted) atmosphere, resulting in the undesirable burning of carbon, CO₂ release into the environment, or the need for some kind of post-burn CO₂ capture, storage and sequestrating. The complete burning of carbon in a bed reactor (or otherwise) is viewed as less desirable than burning manufactured gas substantially composed of hydrogen.

Sequestering of CO₂ is Less Desirable—Sequestering involves the post-burn capture, storage and sequestering of CO₂, for example through deep well injection.¹⁸ There are a number of costs and risks associated with sequestrating CO₂.^(19,20,21,22) Sequestering is an immature field, and as yet the costs and risks are relatively uncertain.²³ This cost and risk uncertainty may result in an unacceptable outcome for many potential sequestering sites. It is believed that the complete burning of carbon and the post-burn capture, storage and re-sequestering of CO₂ is less desirable than burning manufactured gas which is substantially composed of hydrogen gas, and that sequestering is likely to be less economical, at least in the short-run and perhaps in the long-term, as well, when all the external environmental risks and consequences are considered. As a result, sequestering may prove to be technically, geologically, socially and/or politically infeasible for a wide range of applications and potential sites. Therefore, locating acceptable long-term, permanent injection sites for the large-scale sequestrating of CO₂ may be highly problematical, severely limiting the sites available and the viability or usefulness of sequestering as a potential solution to this CO₂ problem.

Starting Materials Discussion Coal as a Starting Material

Purity—Coal consists substantially of carbon, but this is usually mixed with various other chemicals and impurities, including hydrocarbons, water and mineral matter, such as sand and clay. The relative amount of these latter impurities affects the usefulness of the coal as a starting material in a traditional open-cycle furnace. The quality of coal can be determined by its rank and grade.

Coal purity is traditionally ranked in an ascending order of carbon content (going from lowest to highest): Lignite→sub-bituminous coal→bituminous coal→anthracite. The disclosed invention and method extracts manufactured gas from lower quality, higher impurity coals that are less useful or unusable for other purposes.

Chemical Composition—The chemical composition of coal is defined in terms of its proximate and ultimate (elemental) analyses. The parameters of proximate analysis are moisture, volatile matter, ash, and fixed carbon.

Elemental or ultimate analysis encompasses the quantitative determination of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur and oxygen within the coal. Additionally, specific physical and mechanical properties of coal are also determined.

The total calorific value Q_(T) of coal is the heat liberated by its complete combustion with oxygen. Q_(T) is a complex function of the elemental composition of the coal. Q_(T) can be determined experimentally using calorimeters. Dulong suggests the following approximate formula for Q_(T) when the oxygen content is less than 10%:²⁴

Q _(T)=337C+1,442(H—O/8)+93S²⁵

where C is the mass percent of carbon, H is the mass percent of hydrogen, O is the mass percent of oxygen, and S is the mass percent of sulfur in the coal.

The disclosed invention and process envisions the extraction of manufactured gas (substantially containing hydrogen) from coal and other hydrogen-bearing starting materials, and treats carbon as a by-product. Modifying the above formula to remove the caloric contribution of carbon, we get the following approximate hydrogen-related calorific content (Q_(H)):

Q_(H)˜+1,442(H—O/8)

Taking the ratio of Q_(H) to Q_(T) yields the approximate percentage of total available energy in coal that may be derived from extracting manufactured gas. For example, take the following calculation.

For an Example Coal²⁶

$\begin{matrix} {{Q_{T} = {{337C} + {1,442\left( {H - {0\text{/}8}} \right)} + {93S}}},} \\ {= 296.9} \\ {Q_{H} \sim 59.5} \\ {{Q_{H}/Q_{T}} \sim {20\%}} \end{matrix}$ $\frac{{Heating}\mspace{14mu} {Value}\mspace{14mu} {of}\mspace{14mu} {{Hydrogen}\left( {HV}_{H} \right)}}{\left( {{in}\mspace{14mu} {the}\mspace{14mu} {total}\mspace{14mu} {Heating}\mspace{14mu} {Value}\mspace{14mu} {of}\mspace{14mu} {coal}\mspace{14mu} {HV}_{T}} \right)}$ HV_(H)/HV_(T) ∼ 20% HV_(H) ∼ 2, 300  Btu/lb

Mass Flow and Economics—This simple example demonstrates why the throughput volume and mass-flow rate of the disclosed manufactured gas process must be materially higher than that of the traditional open-cycle burner or the typical plasma arc torch design. In the disclosed manufactured gas process, carbon (e.g., ˜62% by weight) is viewed as a by-product. Its heating value is not sought because of the negative environmental consequences associated with CO₂ release. The view here is that the carbon may be largely returned to the ground from whence it came, or may be bound up in some other use. Substantially, the hydrogen contained in starting materials (e.g., 90% H₂ manufactured gas and its energy content) is what is sought.

Efficiency, End-Use Advantages and Offsets—In the above example, extracting and burning manufactured gas (substantially containing hydrogen) from the example coal requires the processing of approximately 4.9 times as much coal as burning it outright in the same conventional open-cycle coal-fired generating plant. If the price of this coal were $36 per ton, then the equivalent variable cost of feed coal (from a manufactured gas perspective) would also be approximately 4.9 times higher or about $175 per ton-equivalent (ignoring any by-product credits or CO₂-related costs for the moment).

It is posited that some, and perhaps all, of the economic disadvantages of manufactured gas extraction may be offset by other factors. Those other factors work toward improving the relative benefits of manufactured gas extracted from starting materials. They include, but may not be limited to:

-   -   The End-Use Effect—The ability to use manufactured gas (e.g.,         90% H₂ gas):     -   in very high efficiency end-uses, e.g., combined cycle electric         generators and in fuel cells, and     -   for more specialized end-uses, such as in transportation,     -   where in both instances solid coal is not a viable option and         where syngas²⁷ manufactured from coal would result in the         undesirable release of CO₂.     -   The Carbon Effect—When the economic cost of carbon is         considered, either:         -   indirectly—when currently unaccounted for external             environmental costs of carbon release, i.e., the Greenhouse             Effect and its negative impact on the global economy, are             considered as externalities,²⁸ or         -   directly—under a carbon tax or alternatively when the cost             of CO₂ capture, storage and sequestering is considered,     -   both of which militate against the open-cycle or closed-cycle         burning of carbon containing starting materials, such as coal.

CCU Efficiency—For example, let us look at the conversion heat rate of a typical supercritical coal-fired steam electric generator of about 10,000 Btu/kWh. The comparable heat rates achievable for a gas-fired combined cycle unit (CCU) electric generator can be on the order of 7,000 Btu/kWh, a significant efficiency improvement. Solid coal cannot be burned in a CCU. In this case, the pyrolytic reactor serves a similar function to the gasifier in an IGCC,²⁹ but minimizes the undesirable release of CO₂ or the need for extensive, costly CO₂ capture, storage and sequestrating.

Fuel Cell Efficiency—Consider the efficiency of burning hydrogen in a fuel cell. Solid coal is not an option for this end-use. Fuel cell efficiencies cover a broad range running from about 20% to 80%.³⁰ The efficiency of a fuel cell is dependent on the current through the fuel cell. As a general rule, the more current that is drawn, the lower the efficiency. A cell running at 0.6V has an efficiency of about 50%, meaning that 50% of the available energy content of the hydrogen is converted into electrical energy. The remaining 50% will be converted into heat. For a hydrogen cell, the second law efficiency is equal to cell voltage divided by 1.23, when operating at standard conditions.

Transportation Fuel—There are numerous cars and buses based on fuel cell technology being researched. Research is ongoing at a variety of motor car manufacturers. For example, Honda has announced the release of a hydrogen vehicle in 2008.³¹ Similar to other fuel-cell vehicles, the new automobile runs on electricity generated by a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen producing harmless water vapor as the by-product.

The Cost of Carbon Emissions—Gasified coal (syngas) may be used for some of the above applications. However, it also releases CO₂ to the atmosphere or requires massive post-burn CO₂ capture, storage and sequestrating. So, by way of a further example, assume that open-cycle carbon emissions are taxed or incur added costs for CO₂ capture, storage and sequestering. Then the economic scales again tip back toward manufactured gas.

A Carbon Tax—Views on a carbon tax range all over the map from a low of $5/ton³² to $37/ton for a “starter tax”³³ to a higher shadow price of $200/ton³⁴ (or more) of carbon emitted to the environment in CO₂ or to $340/ton³⁵ of emitted CO₂.

Carbon Sequestering—Disposing of carbon by sequestrating CO₂ can also be very expensive. Using present technology, estimates of sequestering costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon.³⁶ Improving technology may allow for increased efficiencies and perhaps lower disposal costs in the future. However, even then finding acceptable long-term permanent injection sites for CO₂ capture, storage and sequestrating can be highly problematical.

Transport of Starting Materials—Because of the larger volumes and mass-flow throughput rates required for starting materials processed into manufactured gas, it may prove more economic to locate a processing plant close to the source of the starting materials. In the case of manufactured gas extraction from coal, this might suggest a mine-mouth location or a processing plant location central to a mining district. Coal (and the returning by-products) would then only move the short distance between the mine(s) and the processing plant. Manufactured gas could be transported to the end-use site by pipeline or it could be used on-site in a CCU power plant or in fuel cells. From an energy transportation and delivery perspective, this would mean substituting pipeline and/or power transmission line delivery for train or barge delivery.

Variable Costs Compared—The following table compares the variable energy cost of several technologies (with and without a carbon tax and CO₂ capture, storage and sequestrating) used for coal-based electric power generation.

Coal-Based Electric Generating Technologies Compared

Impact of Carbon Tax and CO₂ Sequestrating on Variable Cost of Coal-Based Generation (in ¢/kWh) Technology Combustion Process Open-Cycle Open-Cycle, With a Carbon Tax of No Tax or CO₂ $37 $200 Sequestrating per ton C per ton C Solid Coal Traditional 2.4 4.0 11.2 10000 Btu/kWh Closed-Cycle with Sequestrating Cost at $100 $300 per ton C per ton C Solid Coal Integrated 1.7 4.4 9.8 Gasifier w/ Combined Cycle Unit 7000 Btu/kWh Est. 90% H₂ % Efficiency Variable Cost* Coal- Combined Cycle 49% 5.5 to 6.2 Based Unit Very High 75% 3.6 to 4.3 Hydrogen Efficiency Fuel Cells *Net after adjustment for starting material transportation savings and other factors.

Q.E.D.—The fuel-related variable cost of these competing technologies becomes comparable when externalities relating to either a carbon tax or CO₂ capture, storage and sequestering are considered. The transport, heat rate, end-use and environmental advantages of manufactured gas (e.g., 90% H₂) can at least in part offset the carbon-related energy disadvantage. This carbon-energy “opportunity lost” is inherent to the disclosed manufactured gas process because it seeks to avoid burning carbon and the release or sequestering of CO₂. It is a burden that any hydrogen gas extraction process, which seeks to minimize the burning of carbon, must overcome.

Starting Material Quality—The use and processing of lower quality coals will also be facilitated by the disclosed inventions and process. Both the cost of upgrading and the cost of long distance transport of large volumes of these low heating value coals may hereby be avoided. Mine-mouth or mining district processing of these low quality coals into manufactured gas will avoid the need for upgrading and transportation.

Assume for discussion purposes that the costs of upgrading and transportation represent between 33% and 50% of the total delivered cost for an example low quality coal. Then the adoption of the disclosed inventions and process (or similar means) will benefit from the avoidance of these costly steps in the energy extraction process. For example, in electric power generation in a conventional power plant the savings are considerable.

-   -   ˜0.8 ¢/kWh assuming a 33% upgrade and transport cost avoided.     -   ˜1.2 ¢/kWh assuming a 50% upgrade and transport cost avoided.

These considerable savings are also available to offset the carbon-energy related “opportunity lost” disadvantage of manufactured gas from the example coal. These savings may also be used to offset the costs of storage, pipeline and/or transmission line delivery of energy produced from manufactured gas.

Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW)

MSW Volumes—The estimated 8 million residents and thousands of businesses throughout the five boroughs of New York City produce approximately 26,000 tons per day (tpd) of waste that is not recyclable under current programs. New York City's Department of Sanitation (DOS) is responsible for approximately 13,000 tpd of this total amount, and private waste-hauling companies handle the remainder. To deal with the portion of waste for which the DOS is responsible, the City Council devised a 20-year management strategy that relies solely upon the exportation of its solid waste. Many see this as an unsustainable waste management strategy due to economic, environmental, and political considerations. However, the pyrolytic decomposition of these wastes, with hydrogen capture, may be another option.³⁷

MSW Composition—The composition of municipal solid wastes is quite varied.^(38,39,40) Solid waste comes from various sources.

An MSW landfill unit is a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile. An MSW landfill unit may also receive other types of wastes, such as commercial solid waste, non-hazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. The municipal solid waste types potentially accepted by MSW landfills include (most landfills accept only a few of the following categories):

-   -   municipal solid wastes or MSW,     -   Household hazardous waste,     -   Municipal sludge,     -   Municipal waste combustion ash,     -   Infectious waste,     -   Waste tires,     -   Industrial non-hazardous waste,     -   Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous         waste,     -   Construction and demolition waste,     -   Agricultural wastes,     -   Oil and gas wastes, and     -   Mining wastes.

In the United States, approximately 57 percent of solid waste is landfilled, 16 percent is incinerated, and 27 percent is recycled or composted. There were an estimated 2,500 active MSW landfills in the United States in 1995. These landfills were estimated to receive 189 million mega-grams (Mg) (208 million tons) of waste annually, with 55 to 60 percent reported as household waste, and 35 to 45 percent reported as commercial waste.⁴¹

The following are estimated percentages for New York City. Municipal solid waste (residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial): 55 to 60 percent by weight; construction and demolition waste: 15 to 20 percent; sewage sludge: 1 to 2 percent; medical waste: 1 to 2 percent; and harbor debris: less than 1 percent. Other forms of waste that can vary by location include agricultural, mining and hazardous waste.⁴²

Waste streams differ in the following attributes:

-   -   physical (e.g., compactibility, density);     -   combustion (temperature, residual ash percentage, heat content         in BTUs);     -   chemical composition percentage of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen,         chlorine; and concentrations of toxic polyaromatic hydrocarbons         (PAHs) and metals;     -   potential for recycling various components; and     -   ease of separation.

A comprehensive waste management program must combine a variety of social, transportation, and treatment technologies. Social issues involve the acceptability of particular programs such as mandatory recycling. Components, in order of desirability, include prevention of wastes at the source; reuse, recycling, or composting; energy recovery; and putting in a landfill only those materials not amenable to other strategies. Any plan should consider impacts on air quality, water quality, traffic, noise, odor, socioeconomic effects, and community acceptance.

Problems with Incineration—There are more than thirty technological approaches to managing solid waste. One of the most common is incineration, which requires a burner and often a supplemental source of fuel. The temperature and the residence time of the waste in the burner determine the efficiency with which organic matter is converted to carbon and hydrogen. Noncombustible material, particularly metals, accumulate in the ash and must be removed—either to landfills or for incorporation into concrete and other construction products. As organic matter cools in the stack, unwanted products such as dioxins may also form. Health risks involve contamination of soil and water by leachate from landfills and by emissions of toxic materials from incinerators. The latter include particulates; sulfur dioxide-and oxides of nitrogen; hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride; carbon monoxide; chlorinated products, including dioxins and furans; metal residues in ash; and volatile organic compounds, including acrolein and phosgene.

Air emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators vary depending on the contents of the solid waste and the completeness of combustion. Pollutants from MSW combustion have potential health-related risks and adverse environmental impacts. Pollutants from MSW burning often include:

-   -   Acid gases—sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride;     -   Particulate Matter—non-gaseous portion (unburned MSW, unburned         fuel, sulfur compounds, carbon, ash, dust);     -   Carbon Monoxide—a product of incomplete combustion;     -   Nitrogen oxides—contributes to smog, acid rain, particulate         formation and regional haze;     -   Metals—Beryllium, cadmium, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium;         and     -   Dioxins and furans—generic terms for groups of related toxic         compounds.⁴³

The disclosed invention eliminates many of these problems through the complete dissociation of toxic substances in the starting materials.

MSW Hydrogen Content—Curiously, the publicly available information on the varying content of MSW indicates that, in general, its composition is similar to that of a low quality coal, e.g., a carbon content of about 46% and a hydrogen content of around 7%⁴⁴. MSW may also hold more moisture than many seam coals.

These figures indicate the higher hydrogen and moisture and lower carbon content for MSW typical of poorer quality coals. High-moisture coals may require drying and upgrading. ⁴⁵ Like high-moisture coals, if MSW are properly processed in advance, then it may be as useful for a starting material as some lower quality coals.⁴⁶

Using the coal-related equations above as a rough approximation for MSW, we get the following results:

$\begin{matrix} {Q_{T} = {{337C} + {1,442\left( {H - {0\text{/}8}} \right)} + {93S}}} \\ {= 294.6} \\ {{Q_{H}/Q_{T}} \sim {33.5\%}} \\ {= {{HV}_{H}/{HV}_{T}}} \\ {{HV}_{H} \sim {33.5\%*5000}} \\ {\sim {1,700\mspace{20mu} {Btu}\text{/}{lb}}} \\ {{74\% \mspace{14mu} {of}\mspace{14mu} {example}\mspace{14mu} {coal}\mspace{14mu} {heating}\mspace{14mu} {value}}} \\ {{140\% \mspace{14mu} {relative}\mspace{14mu} {mass}\mspace{14mu} {throughput}\mspace{14mu} {rate}\mspace{14mu} {required}}} \\ {{1,500\mspace{14mu} {lb}\text{/}{second}\mspace{14mu} {{est}.\mspace{14mu} {required}}\mspace{14mu} {reaction}\mspace{14mu} {rate}}} \end{matrix}$

The relatively low heating value of MSW (like that of a poor quality coal) requires a larger throughput to produce the same amount of hydrogen-based energy. In this case, the starting material throughput rate would need to be about 40% higher than the example coal. This would suggest a MSW throughput rate of about 1,500 lb/second for the similarly sized power plant. Again, a larger reacting region is required to process this larger volume and mass-flow rate of MSW used as a starting material.

Other Starting Materials

Other starting materials may also be considered for manufactured gas production, including, but not limited to, various forms of biomass; biomass by-products, e.g., corn stalks, cobs, brewery and lumber mill by-products and other agricultural wastes, or virgin biomass starting materials, e.g., saw grass, might also be used.

Starting Material Feeding Process

Single and mixed-source starting materials—including, but not limited to, waste, coal or other carbonaceous material, such as MSW, industrial wastes, and biomass, either in solid or liquid form, and/or a mixture thereof—would be fed into a pre-processing, drying, mixing and feeding system. This system would continuously feed pre-processed starting materials into a plasma reactor. The feeding of the starting material would be set at a rate based on the starting material composition, material bed height and the exit manufactured gas requirements. The starting material feeding system serves to homogenize the starting material into a consistent size and composition while removing excess air and moisture. Sensors will be used to measure starting material physical parameters and control the feed rate. All information from the sensors will be fed into a control system that coordinates the operation of the whole plant performance. As stated in the Camacho Patents, the coordination and monitoring of the feeding system through the use of sensors and a control system as part of the process control of the reactor are normal protocol and readily apparent to those skilled in the art.

Alternate configurations of the feeding system may be used for different starting materials or mixes. For instance, fine powders or liquid starting materials may be injected or blown directly into the reactor. Gaseous starting materials may be injected through and crosswise to the plasma injectors. Gas transport may be used for fine solids, such as coal fines. Standard pumps may be used for liquids. Such systems are well known to practitioners of materials handling.

The large plasma reacting zone disclosed here also serves to ensure that all hydrocarbon materials are exposed to the high temperature with residence time in excess of several seconds prior to exiting the reactor. This completes the dissociation process and assures complete gasification and conversion of higher hydrocarbons.

The organic hydrocarbons in the feed material are heated, gasified and dissociated using pyrolysis into a desired and pre-determined exiting manufactured gas composition, flow, temperature, calorific content and volume. The by-products in the starting material, such as carbon, metals and ash, are melted by the hot gases and flow down as molten liquid into a molten liquid (slag) pool at the bottom of the reactor, where it is tapped continuously out of the reactor and cooled into an inert vitrified slag. The design and use of such by-product removal equipment is well understood by those skilled in the art.

The desired exit manufactured gas substantially consisting of hydrogen (but also water, and other gaseous species and lighter particles) may be cooled through a quenching system, scrubbed and dried to remove unwanted moisture and impurities that might be present. In the case of on-site electric generation, the cleaned, dried, cooled manufactured gas would then be compressed at high pressure and injected into a combustion turbine to generate electricity. Hot air from the combustion turbine could be used to produce steam in a residual heat-removal steam generator (HRSG), which would supply high temperature, high pressure steam into a steam turbine to produce additional electricity. The design and use of such generating equipment is well understood by those skilled in the art.

ENDNOTES

¹Pyrolysis defined—Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of materials by heating in the absence of oxygen or any other reagents. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis.

²Carbon nanotubes defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube

³Global warming defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

⁴Carbon cycle defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

⁵U.S. DOE EIA, Carbon Coefficients and Assumptions, p. 4, Direct Global Warming Potential, p. 20 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/gg-app-tables.pdf

⁶Greenhouse gases defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse gas

⁷The Greenhouse Effect defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

⁸Hydrogen Economy defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen %5Feconomy

⁹Nevertheless, controversy over the usefulness of a hydrogen economy have been confused by issues of energy sourcing, including fossil fuel use, greenhouse warming, and sustainable energy generation. These are separate issues, although the hydrogen economy impacts them all.

¹⁰Carbon Sequestering defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

¹¹Vitreous defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitreous

¹²e.g., 4,000 to 7,000 or >7,000 degrees Celsius. See www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/landfill/EngEnvApp.pdf

¹³“The temperature at the core of the plasma arc is about 6000° to 10,000° Celsius.” See http://www.inentec.com/faq3.html

¹⁴“The Thermal Transformation process uses a high temperature (up to 8,000 degrees Fahrenheit.) plasma arc technology to “gasify” carbon based materials” See http://www.recoveredenergy.com/faq.html

¹⁵“1100 to 1400 degrees Celsius” Id.

¹⁶See http://www.westinghouse-plasma.com/gasif.htm “The plasma torch power requirement ranged from 100 kW to 250 kW per ton/hr of MSW/ASR/Coal and higher for inorganic waste treatment/vitrification.”

¹⁷Syngas defined. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

¹⁸Carbon sequestration is the term describing processes that remove carbon to help mitigate global warming, a variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon are being explored. Carbon sink and sequestering defined. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

¹⁹Coal bed sequestration risks discussed. See http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/815530-DpCR2M/native/815530.pdf

²⁰“[Certain] events could lead to CO₂ leakage, compromising the storage effectiveness and possibly posing risks to the environment and human health.” See http:/www.llnl.gov/str/May05/Friedmann.html

²¹Carbon sequestration “Risk/Uncertainty—Costs, Environment, Safety and health, Technical feasibility and efficiency” See http://www.westcarb.org/pdfs/co2sequest.pdf

²²“In no way, however, should geologic carbon sequestration be seen as a “silver bullet” to reducing emissions, nor should it be researched and developed at the expense of other environmentally sound, technologically feasible, and economically affordable solutions to climate change.” Union of Concerned Scientists. See http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warning/solutions/geologic-carbon-sequestering.html

²³“More research is needed before risk profiles for geological reservoirs can be created.” See http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18859.pdf

²⁴See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_value _of_coal

²⁵With these constants, Q is given in kilojoules per kilogram.

²⁶See Table 3-1 at http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/5916838-gYo54i/5916838.PDF

²⁷Syngas defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

²⁸Externalities defined—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

²⁹For IGCC see http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/igcc/index.htm

³⁰“A hydrogen cell uses hydrogen as fuel and oxygen as oxidant.” The term Fuel cell is defined and fuel cell efficiencies are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel cell

³¹See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/09/25/tech-diesel-060925.html

³²See The Lincoln Plan at http://www.climateark.org/lincoln_plan/

³³“The $37 per ton of carbon “starter tax” mentioned earlier, equating to around 10 cents a gallon of gasoline, fits the lower end of that range.” See Carbon Tax Center at http://www.carbontax.org/faq/

³⁴“We found that a typical shadow price on carbon (a carbon fee or tax, for example) to prevent the concentrations of CO₂ from more than doubling was around $200 per ton Carbon emitted.” See Statement of Stephen Schneider, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Feb. 28, 2007 at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=5564

³⁵“Most luxury homes in Aspen, Colo. contain energy-guzzling amenities such as heated driveways and outdoor pools. In response, Pitkin County has implemented the world's stiffest tax on carbon emissions, rated at $340 per ton of carbon dioxide, as part of a plan to finance green projects in the region.” (Christian Science Monitor) See http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/glotax/carbon/2003/0109aspen.htm

³⁶See http://www.fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/overview.html

³⁷ Alternative Technologies for New York City's Waste Disposal, 2004, see http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/pages/projects/f2004/Solid_Waste_Final_Report.pdf

“Whether or not these technologies could be applied to New York City is worthy of further analysis. Anaerobic digestion in itself would not meet the legislative requirement, but could aid in reducing a large quantity of organic waste. Plasma pyrolysis has the potential to meet the entire requirement of the legislation, but may not be conducive to the city. There are uncertainties in using both methods, and these concerns must be further researched and addressed before implementation can be considered. If New York City considers either of these technologies as viable options, we suggest that pilot plants be implemented to analyze their feasibility in New York City. This would allow the public to be introduced to the new technologies, and discourage future protest if the plants were scaled to meet the proposed waste disposal needs. These pilot plants would need to be constructed in the near future in order to meet the time constraints set forth by the legislation.”

³⁸Table I. San Diego Sanitary Fill Material Survey, See http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/1968/2/i11/f-pdf/f_es60022a003.pdf?sessid=600613

³⁹Municipal Solid Waste Profile, U.S. DOE, EIA, See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/chap03.html

⁴⁰Energy from Municipal Waste, Picking Up Where Recycling Leaves Off, See http://www.p2pays.org/ref/08/07797.pdf

⁴¹See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf

⁴²See http://health.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/municipal-solid-waste

⁴³See http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-20.htm

⁴⁴See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-49Y3FY5-3&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d12d1cd505316c5a7ca1486d2e557cb8

⁴⁵Coal Conversion, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s11.pdf

⁴⁶See paper on Clean Coal Technology (CCT) at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/publications/Clean_Coal_Topical_Reports/topical10.pdf 

1: A plasma sheet as a means for the manufacture of gas by pyrolytic heating, gasifying and dissociation of large volumes of starting materials. 2: A plasma array as another means for the manufacture of by pyrolytic heating, gasifying and dissociation of large volumes of starting materials. 3: A process for the high-volume, high mass-flow rate manufacture of gas by pyrolytic heating, gasifying and dissociation of large volumes of starting materials using either of the disclosed inventions or similar means. 